Is it the grandmother who babysat a four-year-old despite knowing the dog’s capabilities? Why, no, she’s some kind of heroine for her actions, it seems:
His grandmother Helen Foulkes, 63, desperately tried to save him but was herself attacked. The youngster suffered horrendous injuries to his face, neck and body.Is it the mother, who left the boy and his brother in a house known to have a dangerous dog?
John-Paul was attacked in the early hours of yesterday at a terraced house in Wavertree, Liverpool, where he was staying with his 13-year- old brother Craig. Their mother Angela Foulkes, a 39-year-old caterer, was away.No, she’s probably untouchable.
Especially in ‘Self Pity City’. Already, the clergy have been round to
Is it the dog owner himself, who certainly seems to have been well known in the area?
The dog was owned and trained by John-Paul's uncle Christian Foulkes, aged 21. Residents said Mr Foulkes, who recently joined the Army, would often prowl the neighbourhood menacing people with the snarling animal.Hmm, as an Army man and grieving family member, he’s probably untouchable.
Despite the neighbours’ comments:
Neighbour Amy Leigh, 23, said: 'It was like a status symbol to show everyone how tough he was. The dog was seriously deranged and no one would touch it.'No. None of the above.
It is, of course, the fault of the police yet again:
Last night it emerged a complaint had been made to police nine months ago about a potential dog-breeding operation at the house.Well, so what? Is simple ‘dog breeding’ against the law?
The February call was taken by a civilian worker but never acted upon and will now form part of a separate police inquiry.
Are the police supposed to nip round every time the curate’s Labrador gets frisky with the church cleaner’s Pomeranian bitch?
Chief Superintendent Steve Ashley said: 'We had one complaint from a housing officer that the premises was being used to breed dogs.If the words ‘dangerous dogs’ weren’t used, what the hell are the police to do?
'I regret to say we did not respond to that. The operator decided that was not a police matter and advice was given over the phone. That is not Merseyside Police policy.
'The words "dangerous dogs" was not used. That will form a separate investigation
But no, they make far better, less likely-to-backfire targets for the media blame-game than the owners of the dog and the parents who put their child in danger, don’t they?
Related: Over at Bystander’s , the usual suspects so keen to look on the lenient side with human criminals, and to deride poorly-drawn-up laws, and to castigate others for expecting legislation to be driven by sentiment rather than the cool, calm legal experts, totally lose their collective shit:
” Let's not be mealy mouthed about this. There is no reason for any civilised person to want one of these savage animals. They should all, even the 'aaah-he's-so-cuddly' so called pets, be destroyed. If the original Dangerous Dogs Act had been enforced (tricky because it was so badly drafted) the breeds would already have died out. I have seen cases in recent years of breeding and selling these lethal animals. The police have a softer policy these days, at least in London, allowing attack dogs to survive if chipped and neutered. Sod that. Destroy them all. One innocent child is worth more than all the dogs in the country put together.*snicker*
‘Daily Mail Subscriptions Desk? Yes, I’d like a gift subscription for someone, please…’